↓ Skip to main content

Rough set theory based prognostic classification models for hospice referral

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rough set theory based prognostic classification models for hospice referral
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0216-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleazar Gil-Herrera, Garrick Aden-Buie, Ali Yalcin, Athanasios Tsalatsanis, Laura E. Barnes, Benjamin Djulbegovic

Abstract

This paper explores and evaluates the application of classical and dominance-based rough set theory (RST) for the development of data-driven prognostic classification models for hospice referral. In this work, rough set based models are compared with other data-driven methods with respect to two factors related to clinical credibility: accuracy and accessibility. Accessibility refers to the ability of the model to provide traceable, interpretable results and use data that is relevant and simple to collect. We utilize retrospective data from 9,103 terminally ill patients to demonstrate the design and implementation RST- based models to identify potential hospice candidates. The classical rough set approach (CRSA) provides methods for knowledge acquisition, founded on the relational indiscernibility of objects in a decision table, to describe required conditions for membership in a concept class. On the other hand, the dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) analyzes information based on the monotonic relationships between condition attributes values and their assignment to the decision class. CRSA decision rules for six-month patient survival classification were induced using the MODLEM algorithm. Dominance-based decision rules were extracted using the VC-DomLEM rule induction algorithm. The RST-based classifiers are compared with other predictive and rule based decision modeling techniques, namely logistic regression, support vector machines, random forests and C4.5. The RST-based classifiers demonstrate average AUC of 69.74 % with MODLEM and 71.73 % with VC-DomLEM, while the compared methods achieve average AUC of 74.21 % for logistic regression, 73.52 % for support vector machines, 74.59 % for random forests, and 70.88 % for C4.5. This paper contributes to the growing body of research in RST-based prognostic models. RST and its extensions posses features that enhance the accessibility of clinical decision support models. While the non-rule-based methods-logistic regression, support vector machines and random forests-were found to achieve higher AUC, the performance differential may be outweighed by the benefits of the rule-based methods, particularly in the case of VC-DomLEM. Developing prognostic models for hospice referrals is a challenging problem resulting in substandard performance for all of the evaluated classification methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Engineering 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,242,087
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,102
of 1,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,236
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#25
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,989 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.